Performance evaluation of visual SLAM using several feature extractors
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Visual simultaneous localization and mapping (SLAM) implementations must use feature extraction to reduce the dimensionality of image input, yet no comparison of feature extractors exists in the context of visual SLAM. This paper presents both a method for comparison of visual SLAM performance using several different feature extractors and the first experimental study using this method. Possible evaluation metrics are discussed and consistency testing and accumulated uncertainty are chosen to measure performance. Three feature extractors commonly used for visual SLAM are examined: the Harris corner detector, the Kanade-Lucas-Tomasi tracker, and the scale-invariant feature transform. All three are found to perform similarly in an indoor test environment, close to or within the limits of measurement. A modest scale change is handled without difficulty. We conclude that feature extractor choice is not significant in terms of visual SLAM performance and other criteria may be used to make the selection.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it